Richard Vernon – författare

This volume contributes to the growing literature on the morality of procreation and parenting. About half of the chapters take up questions about the morality of bringing children into existence. They discuss the following questions: Is it wrong to create human life? Is there a connection between the problem of evil and the morality of procreation? Could there be a duty to procreate? How do the environmental harms imposed by procreation affect its moral status? Given these costs, is the value of establishing genetic ties ever significant enough to render procreation morally permissible? And how should government respond to peoples' motives for procreating?The other half of the volume considers moral and political questions about adoption and parenting. One chapter considers whether the choice to become a parent can be rational. The two following chapters take up the regulation of adoption, focusing on whether the special burdens placed on adoptive parents, as compared to biological parents, can be morally justified. The book concludes by considering how we should conceive of adequacy standards in parenting and what resources we owe to children.This collection builds on existing literature by advancing new arguments and novel perspectives on existing debates. It also raises new issues deserving of our attention. As a whole it is sure to generate further philosophical debate on pressing and rich questions surrounding the bearing and rearing of children.

This volume contributes to the growing literature on the morality of procreation and parenting. About half of the chapters take up questions about the morality of bringing children into existence. They discuss the following questions: Is it wrong to create human life? Is there a connection between the problem of evil and the morality of procreation? Could there be a duty to procreate? How do the environmental harms imposed by procreation affect its moral status? Given these costs, is the value of establishing genetic ties ever significant enough to render procreation morally permissible? And how should government respond to peoples' motives for procreating?The other half of the volume considers moral and political questions about adoption and parenting. One chapter considers whether the choice to become a parent can be rational. The two following chapters take up the regulation of adoption, focusing on whether the special burdens placed on adoptive parents, as compared to biological parents, can be morally justified. The book concludes by considering how we should conceive of adequacy standards in parenting and what resources we owe to children.This collection builds on existing literature by advancing new arguments and novel perspectives on existing debates. It also raises new issues deserving of our attention. As a whole it is sure to generate further philosophical debate on pressing and rich questions surrounding the bearing and rearing of children.

First published in 1986. Nations have a unity often described as 'cultural'; and within them there are divergences some of which are termed 'political'. But culture and politics do not, therefore, comprise two wholly distinct zones or orders of experience, the one marked by unity, the other by plurality. Unity and plurality interpenetrate. These insights, which derive from the thinking of Herder, have been fundamental to the work of F. M. Barnard. In this volume a number of scholars contribute, in Barnardian vein, reflections on the tensions between unity and plurality in the history of ideas. The central underlying question is, in essence, ’what is the context of political life?’ The question remains of more importance than any single answer.

First published in 1986. Nations have a unity often described as 'cultural'; and within them there are divergences some of which are termed 'political'. But culture and politics do not, therefore, comprise two wholly distinct zones or orders of experience, the one marked by unity, the other by plurality. Unity and plurality interpenetrate. These insights, which derive from the thinking of Herder, have been fundamental to the work of F. M. Barnard. In this volume a number of scholars contribute, in Barnardian vein, reflections on the tensions between unity and plurality in the history of ideas. The central underlying question is, in essence, ’what is the context of political life?’ The question remains of more importance than any single answer.

John Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) is one of the most widely-read texts in the political theory of toleration, and a key text for the liberal tradition. However, Locke also defended toleration more extensively in three subsequent Letters, which he wrote in response to criticism by an Anglican cleric, Jonas Proast. This edition, which includes a new translation of the original Letter, by Michael Silverthorne, enables readers to assess John Locke's theory of toleration by studying both his classic work and essential extracts from the later Letters. An introduction by Richard Vernon sets Locke's theory in its historical context and examines the key questions for contemporary political theorists which arise from this major work in the history of political thought.

Ideas of collective responsibility challenge the doctrine of individual responsibility that is the dominant paradigm in law and liberal political theory. But little attention is given to the consequences of holding groups accountable for wrongdoing. Groups are not amenable to punishment in the way that individuals are. Can they be punished - and if so, how - or are other remedies available? The topic crosses the borders of law, philosophy and political science, and in this volume specialists in all three areas contribute their perspectives. They examine the limits of individual criminal liability in addressing atrocity, the meanings of punishment and responsibility, the distribution of group punishment to a group's members, and the means by which collective accountability can be expressed. In doing so, they reflect on the legacy of the Nuremberg Trials, on the philosophical understanding of collective responsibility, and on the place of collective accountability in international political relations.

Cosmopolitan theory suggests that we should shift our moral attention from the local to the global. Richard Vernon argues, however, that if we adopt cosmopolitan beliefs about justice we must re-examine our beliefs about political obligation. Far from undermining the demands of citizenship, cosmopolitanism implies more demanding political obligations than theories of the state have traditionally recognized. Using examples including humanitarian intervention, international criminal law, and international political economy, Vernon suggests we have a responsibility not to enhance risks facing other societies and to assist them when their own risk-taking has failed. The central arguments in Cosmopolitan Regard are that what we owe to other societies rests on the same basis as what we owe to our own, and that a theory of cosmopolitanism must connect the responsibilities of citizens beyond their own borders with their obligations to one another.

Cosmopolitan theory suggests that we should shift our moral attention from the local to the global. Richard Vernon argues, however, that if we adopt cosmopolitan beliefs about justice we must re-examine our beliefs about political obligation. Far from undermining the demands of citizenship, cosmopolitanism implies more demanding political obligations than theories of the state have traditionally recognized. Using examples including humanitarian intervention, international criminal law, and international political economy, Vernon suggests we have a responsibility not to enhance risks facing other societies and to assist them when their own risk-taking has failed. The central arguments in Cosmopolitan Regard are that what we owe to other societies rests on the same basis as what we owe to our own, and that a theory of cosmopolitanism must connect the responsibilities of citizens beyond their own borders with their obligations to one another.

John Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) is one of the most widely-read texts in the political theory of toleration, and a key text for the liberal tradition. However, Locke also defended toleration more extensively in three subsequent Letters, which he wrote in response to criticism by an Anglican cleric, Jonas Proast. This edition, which includes a new translation of the original Letter, by Michael Silverthorne, enables readers to assess John Locke's theory of toleration by studying both his classic work and essential extracts from the later Letters. An introduction by Richard Vernon sets Locke's theory in its historical context and examines the key questions for contemporary political theorists which arise from this major work in the history of political thought.

The Career of Toleration considers the Locke-Proast controversy from the standpoint of political theory, examining Locke's and Proast's texts and tracing their relationship to later discussions of toleration. Vernon reconstructs the grounds of the dispute, drawing attention to the long-term importance of the arguments and evaluating their relative strength. He then examines issues of toleration in later contexts, specifically James Fitzjames Stephen's critique of John Stuart Mill, the perfectionist alternative to contractualist liberalism, and the view that the traditional attachment to toleration must, by the force of its own arguments, move from liberalism to a defence of a much stronger form of democracy. Arguing that Locke's and Proast's exchange marks a turning point in the intellectual history that has helped to structure the terms of modern political debate, Vernon presents a solid case for thinking that the exchange between Locke and Proast is as important for the twentieth century as it was for the seventeenth.

Although liberal democratic polities have an important place in contemporary politics, their justification is contentious. Liberalism and democracy are commonly thought to be inconsistent, or at least in tension with one another; and the reality of liberal democracy is perceived as falling far short of the ideal. In Political Morality, Richard Vernon sets out to show that liberal democracy can make sense as a single political conception, rather than a trade-off between two different values. He also argues that in conceiving of liberal democracy as proposed, other problems inherent in liberalism and in democracy are eased; liberal democracy is not exposed to the same objections as liberalism and it can avoid some of the paradoxes that are said to plague democratic theory. The book also points to some of the ways in which polities currently termed 'liberal democracies' fall clearly short of the values that might legitimize them.

Ideas of collective responsibility challenge the doctrine of individual responsibility that is the dominant paradigm in law and liberal political theory. But little attention is given to the consequences of holding groups accountable for wrongdoing. Groups are not amenable to punishment in the way that individuals are. Can they be punished - and if so, how - or are other remedies available? The topic crosses the borders of law, philosophy and political science, and in this volume specialists in all three areas contribute their perspectives. They examine the limits of individual criminal liability in addressing atrocity, the meanings of punishment and responsibility, the distribution of group punishment to a group's members, and the means by which collective accountability can be expressed. In doing so, they reflect on the legacy of the Nuremberg Trials, on the philosophical understanding of collective responsibility, and on the place of collective accountability in international political relations.

This title provides an introduction to the philosophical implications of the recent surge of political and ethical interest in historical redress. Should the British Museum return the Elgin Marbles to Greece? Should settler societies in North America and Australasia compensate the aboriginal people whom they dispossessed? Should Israel have accepted Germany's compensation for Nazi extermination policies? The last twenty years have seen a remarkable surge of political and ethical interest in historical redress - that is, the righting of old wrongs. In this fascinating book, Richard Vernon argues that whatever the kind of redress that's at issue, and whether the wrong is large or small, an important philosophical issue arises. Exploring recent and high profile cases, Vernon focuses on the issue of responsibility. Responsibility isn't something inherited, like property or one's DNA. How, then, can it fall to one generation to make good the wrongs done by another?The book addresses all the main issues and arguments relating to justice, memory, apology and citizenship, and concludes by arguing for a forward-looking approach that focuses on the right of future generations to live just lives. "Think Now" is a new series of books which examines central contemporary social and political issues from a philosophical perspective. These books aim to be accessible, rather than overly technical, bringing philosophical rigour to modern questions which matter the most to us. Provocative yet engaging, the authors take a stand on political and cultural themes of interest to any intelligent reader.

This title provides an introduction to the philosophical implications of the recent surge of political and ethical interest in historical redress. Should the British Museum return the Elgin Marbles to Greece? Should settler societies in North America and Australasia compensate the aboriginal people whom they dispossessed? Should Israel have accepted Germany's compensation for Nazi extermination policies? The last twenty years have seen a remarkable surge of political and ethical interest in historical redress - that is, the righting of old wrongs. In this fascinating book, Richard Vernon argues that whatever the kind of redress that's at issue, and whether the wrong is large or small, an important philosophical issue arises. Exploring recent and high profile cases, Vernon focuses on the issue of responsibility. Responsibility isn't something inherited, like property or one's DNA. How, then, can it fall to one generation to make good the wrongs done by another?The book addresses all the main issues and arguments relating to justice, memory, apology and citizenship, and concludes by arguing for a forward-looking approach that focuses on the right of future generations to live just lives. "Think Now" is a new series of books which examines central contemporary social and political issues from a philosophical perspective. These books aim to be accessible, rather than overly technical, bringing philosophical rigour to modern questions which matter the most to us. Provocative yet engaging, the authors take a stand on political and cultural themes of interest to any intelligent reader.

Ideas of justice have traditionally focused on what individuals owe to one another and have drawn our attention to what is considered fair – what one of us owes to another is justly matched by what the other owes to them. However, what does justice require us to do for past and future generations?In Justice Back and Forth, award-winning author Richard Vernon explores the possibility of justice in cases where time makes reciprocity impossible. This “temporal justice” is examined in ten controversial cases including the duty to return historical artifacts, the ethics and politics of parenting, the punishment of historical offences, the right to procreate, and the imposition of constitutions on future citizens. By deftly weaving together discussions on historical redress and justice for future generations, Vernon reveals that these two opposing topics can in fact be used to illuminate each other. In doing so, he concludes that reciprocity can be adapted to serve intergenerational cases.

This analysis of Georges Sorel's ideas on revolution and the original translations of some of his little-known writings on this theme offer a critical reassessment of Sorel's place in modern political thought. By turns conservative pessimist, social democrat, revolutionary syndicalist, and reactionary, Sorel is a perplexing figure. He has long been regarded as one of a generation of intellectuals who abandoned reason for violence, theoretical reflection for practical commitment. But according to Sorel -- as the title of his most notorious book makes clear -- the task of the theoretician is to reflect on violence. He maintained that reflection discloses the limited and deficient character of practical thought, but he also recognized that the springs of action escape the grasp of the reflective theorist. It was this distinctness of theory and practice that Soreal attempted to come to terms with in his thinking on revolution. If revolution is a violent action, it is also a process of structural change which the actors themselves do not comprehend. This theme enables the reader to grasp a significant degree of continuity among some of Sorel's bewilderingly diverse positions. Moreover, it accounts for much of his critique of Marxism and his sceptical reflects on Marxian notions of history, class, consciousness, and party. Placed in the context of modern revolutionary thinking, Sorel is an eccentric figure but not an irrelevant one, for his approach points to some of the difficulties in the idea of revolution that were largely overlooked by the 'New Left.'

The citizen, a figure capable of self-government is both the political and the personal sense, is a central and enduring theme of political thought. The role of the citizen in the modern state was question raised persistently by French political theorists from Rousseau on, as they sought new principles of legitimacy to replace those of the ancient regime. Richard Vernon’s studies in this volume examine a series of moments in French political thought when the possibility and meaning of citizenship were called into question.Vernon considers the view held by Rousseau and later Durkheim that citizenship was sustained immediately by moral principles, a view that was criticized by others who refused any such identification of political and moral order. Vernon shows how this refusal governs, in different ways, the political thinking of theorists as diverse as Maistre, Proudhon, Tocqueville, Comte, Sorel, and Bergson. He explains why the idea of citizenship in its political sense was exposed to so many objections, objections that may in turn suggest a new approach to the topic of political legitimacy.Citizenship may once have been legitimated by ideas of moral, religious or cosmic order, but in a modern context it is the civic process itself that must exercise a legitimating function. Once, citizenship rested upon order; now, suggests Vernon, we may have to realize that order depends upon citizen.

From flag-waving to the singing of national anthems, the practices and symbols ofpatriotism are inescapable, and modern politics is increasingly full of appeals topatriotic fervour. But if no-one chooses where they were born, and our ethicalobligations transcend national boundaries, then does patriotism make any sense? Doesit encourage an uncritical attachment to the status quo, or is it a crucial way ofunderstanding and applying our freedoms and moral duties?In this engaging book, Charles Jones and Richard Vernon guide us through thesequestions with razor-sharp clarity. They examine the different ways patriotism has beendefended and explained, from a republican attachment to free and democraticinstitutions to an ethical and historical fabric that makes our entire moral life andidentity possible. They outline its relationship to a range of other key concepts, such asnationalism and cosmopolitanism, and skilfully analyse the issues surroundingpartiality to country and whether we should prioritise the welfare of our compatriotsover outsiders.This concise and lucid volume will be essential for both students and general readerswishing to understand the contemporary resonance and historical development ofpatriotism, and how it intersects with debates about global justice, cosmopolitanismand nationalism.